Xbox Live invades privacy? Not so fast.

Does Xbox Live go too far in notifying other users of your gaming and …

There's an article making the rounds today that's just a tad bit hyperventilating, accusing Microsoft of invading gamers' privacy with the Xbox Live service. As you likely know, Xbox Live is a centrally managed online gaming service aimed at connecting gamers and, more recently with the addition of the 360, putting gamers into a marketplace where they can buy services, add-ons, and share stats about gaming experiences, etc.

As it turns out, gamers connected to Xbox live have statuses that can be seen in their profiles. If you're playing Madden 2006, your profile will note that at the time. What had the guys at Hexus all worked up was that fact that your status would also note if you were doing things such as listening to music, browsing pictures, or using the Media Center extenders. That's non-gaming stuff, you see. This, they believed was morally corrupt.

So why is this a problem? Well for starters just what we do in our own homes is an entirely private matter. You wouldn’t ring the neighbours up and tell them what you’re having for dinner or what you’re going to watch on TV, would you? In fact, you wouldn’t ring up your mate and tell him you’re going to listen to some music, flick through a few snaps and then settle down with a DVD… except Microsoft seem to think you would. So kiss goodbye any thoughts of being able to boot up your Xbox 360, have a quick blast of PGR3 then watch a DVD in the privacy of your own home as Microsoft are flagging your actions to anyone you know. We’ll know what you played, if you watched a movie, if you listened to music and even if you booted up MCE to catch up on the telly viewing… Xbox LIVE and Microsoft will tell us.

The article contains two serious omissions, one of which was a mistake, and the other a little more difficult to explain. First, the mistake. In all the hubbub one important thing was missed: you can opt-out of all of this. Between the time when I first read the article and just now, it appears as though they've caught on to this. Now, however, they fault Microsoft not making this an opt-in service. I'm not so sure I agree. Here's why:

The larger problem is that the article fails to point out the obvious, namely that you have to connect to Xbox Live for any of this to happen. The assertion that Microsoft is invading your privacy when you play game is ridiculous, given the fact that you first have to connect to Xbox Live to begin with, and its entire purpose is to connect gamers. It's a bit like getting upset when AIM reports you are "away" when you're not using your computer. Don't install the application and set it to connect if you don't want people knowing your status.

How Live should Live be?

Despite the fact that I think the article is entirely too alarmist, and could have used more research, it does raise an interesting point with regards to these services if we think about where they are headed. Microsoft, in particular, is all about the gaming experience, and as Ben pointed out last night, the social aspect of that experience may in fact be essential. Of course, for some of us PC gamers, the whole social aspect of online play is ages old. I was hooked with Quake (1). But now things are moving to the next level, where you can create friends lists, see what they're doing, and see how they compare to you in various gaming metrics. You can leave them messages to taunt or praise them, or you can head off in search of random strangers. The point is this: the service is built with gaming and social experiences in mind, and it behooves everyone to be aware of this. You don't head to Xbox Live to be "off the grid," but when you're on the service, how much should it divulge?

Those of you who have spent time with the Xbox 360 know that the level of online integration far exceeds that which was available with the original Xbox. For many people, this is a plus. But obviously, some people think it has gone too far. But here's the deal: we can't really have a realistic expectation to privacy online, not when engaging in transactions. When you sign up for an immersive, social gaming experience service... can you really expect to have "privacy" as it's classically defined? No. You've already agreed to have a portion of "privacy" abandoned for social purposes. The only question remains is just how much information is important to share with other gamers, and when we turn to that, it's less a question of abstract privacy and more a question of the (somewhat) free market. People will vote with their monthly subscription fees.

Ken Fisher / Ken is the founder & Editor-in-Chief of Ars Technica. A veteran of the IT industry and a scholar of antiquity, Ken studies the emergence of intellectual property regimes and their effects on culture and innovation.